evince filename-with-colon-innit horkage (Jaunty)

Bug #325160 reported by GiuseppeVerde
4
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
evince (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Low
Ubuntu Desktop Bugs

Bug Description

Binary package hint: evince

When opening a file created by "echo b0rked > empty:file.txt", evince reports that it is "Unable to open document\n\nThe specified location is not supported". This is a problem if, for instance, you've used colons as a delimiter in some filenames, e.g. B:7T

Revision history for this message
Pedro Villavicencio (pedro) wrote :

thanks for the report, because those are being treated as a location? could you test if gvfs-open works with that? this is probably a gvfs issue.

Changed in evince:
assignee: nobody → desktop-bugs
importance: Undecided → Low
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported, but feel free to report any other bugs you find.

Changed in evince:
status: Incomplete → Invalid
Revision history for this message
GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru) wrote :

If it's a duplicate, close with DUPLICATE and link to the bug so I can subscribe to it.

Changed in evince:
status: Invalid → New
Revision history for this message
Pedro Villavicencio (pedro) wrote :

you're welcome to help us to find the right number.

Changed in evince:
status: New → Invalid
Revision history for this message
Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

there is no need to use this tone, the people working on those bugs are busy and you could look for the number yourself rather than asking them to do that for you

Revision history for this message
Dimitrios Symeonidis (azimout) wrote :

With all due respect to Pedro & Sebastien, I think that Giuseppe is right here.
Until now, it has been standard procedure to mark duplicate bugs as duplicate, with a link to the master bug and a comment giving this standard response:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#A%20duplicate

I am not very comfortable with this new trend, to just close as invalid. Not all users know what is a duplicate bug and how to search for it (let alone reliably find it). It is our job to find the duplicates for them and to help them follow the bug resolution process (upstream reporting, in progress, fix committed and released).

As a personal opinion, I think it's better to leave the bug open (as New) until we have the time to actually find the duplicate, than to mark as invalid and leave the bug reporter in the dark...

Revision history for this message
GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru) wrote :

I apologize if you got a bad "tone" from my ascii text; tragically ascii is devoid of any extra cues other than the words and no negatiive tone was intended.

Regarding bug hunting, I *had* hunted for the same sort of bugs. I chased down a similar bug earlier in gnumeric a year or two ago. The problem there was that the colon was causing the url identifier to believe that the file is a url of "<pathuptocolon>:<stuffaftercolon".

The same is the case here. forcing a file:// url works regarless of colon. The bug is triggered on colon, and that's what I searched for.

Now I'll go post most of this on the other bug.

Revision history for this message
Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

Letting all the duplicates open means that bug lists become useless due to all the noise, closing those is not ideal but it's better than getting in the way of people who are using those lists to know what work is required

Revision history for this message
GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru) wrote :

[quote]Letting all the duplicates open means that bug lists become useless due to all the noise, closing those is not ideal but it's better than getting in the way of people who are using those lists to know what work is required[/quote]

The point is that, if you assert that it's a dupe, you link to the dupe before closing. The closing is a given, but the dup-linking is a prerequisite.

Revision history for this message
Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

looking for exact number is quite some work which can be spent on bug fixing rather

Revision history for this message
GiuseppeVerde (launchpad-digitasaru) wrote :

[quote]looking for exact number is quite some work which can be spent on bug fixing rather[/quote]

If you're going to claim something, back it up. It's useful for the person requesting and it's not like I'm without other crap to be doing besides looking up what bug you may have been thinking of.

Your claim, your responsibility IMHO. The wiki page seems to agree.

Revision history for this message
Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

nobody denies that ideally bugs should be closed using the correct duplicate number, there is lot of duplicates filed on the desktop bugs though and not so many people working on cleaning those bugs so either the duplicate stay open and makes the buglists hard to work on or the triagers close duplicates and makes job easier

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.